CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS… are highly sensitive and protective in terms of majority nationality or constitutive natios, as well as ‚protecting‘ their national interests. They often do so, limiting the right to acquire their citizenships. Hereby the question arises on where the boundary between the sovereign right of the state on regulating the conditions for acquiring the citizenship, at one side, and the human right of every individual to having a citizenship, on the other one. It is crucial to know the answer to that question, because many other civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights could be enjoyed on the basis of citizenship. 4 International Legal Standards on the Right to Citizenship – a Short Analytic Overview Comparing to many other human rights, the right to citizenship became relatively early a subject of international legal regulation, as it appeared in era of the League of Nations in 1930s. Actually, international legal sources on this civil right commenced with adoption of the Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality which was adopted at the Conference on codification of private international law in The Hague. 5 The Convention, with limited number of ratifications, 6 stipulated that each individual has the right to a single nationality. Also, as the basic aims of the treaty is the removal of both statelessness and co-existence of dual or two citizenships. This solution was in line with the complex problems that had arisen in the past when a lot of concrete cases derived from the conflict of different national laws. Accordingly, there were additional bilateral agreements mostly signed by neighboring states, like the one between Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Romania from 1935, 7 by which “the provisions of Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention between the Kingdom of Romania and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia regulating the question of nationality and that of the citizenship of persons who, in consequence of the frontier delimitation, have lost their original nationality, signed on January 30 th 1933, at Belgrade, shall also apply to persons who had citizenship at Jasa Tomic (Modos) or at Surjan, in so far as such persons fulfil the conditions stipulated in the above-mentioned Articles. For such persons, the period provided for in the Convention of January 30 th , 1933, shall begin on the date of ratification of the present Agreement”. 8 It it clear that such an arrangement was important for legal certainty of the citizens from border areas, but also anyone in position of being under threat of becoming stateless, and that concrete steps were undertaken in order for the aim of the Convention to be fulfilled in terms that none would be without citizenship or with double citizenship. Unfortunately, nowadays the states are not so eager to conclude international bilateral agreements concerning citizenship regulation, and they are in particular very reluctant to the 4 Montenegrin citizenship is, for example, a prerequisite for enjoyment of the right to enroll in the state administration in Montenegro, to represent the state in diplomatic missions or to be one of three candidates for the post of judge at the EctHR. 5 Text of the Convention available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/LONViewDetails.aspx?src=LON&id=516&c hapter=30&clang=_en. 6 Among other states, both Czechoslovakia and Former Yugoslavia are under the status: ‘signatures not yet perfected by ratification’. 7 Additional agreement to the Convention signed at Belgrade on January 30th, 1933, between the Kingdom of Roumania and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia regulating the question of nationality and that of the citizenship of persons who, in consequence of the frontier delimitation, have lost their original nationality. Signed at Bucharest, March 13 th 1935. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%20179/v179.pdf. 8 Articles 1 and 2.

231